We Were First On The "Out Of The Closet Allan Stadtmauer Story"
Allan Stadtmauer, Scoops, MSM and Blogs (picked up from the Canonist Blog)
The Canonist laments:"A reader who claims to know a lot about what went into the decision-making for the Forward's story on Stadtmauer e-mailed me with some specific questions about my post of last night and my initial reaction to the Forward story, touching on a number of issues of news philosophy in general and how blogging affects that discussion. While, on some recent occasions I've avoided writing about these issues because I feel that a lot of the blogging vs. MSM territory has been covered — even in specific regard to Jewish and religious coverage, in posts past — the questions presented by this reader deal with some issues I've yet to address, and the reader is a person for whom I have great respect.
His questions:
1) Why did you not call Ami [Eden] and ask him about why he ran the story before you blogged about it? "The only reason for the paper to cover that story before obtaining comment is the general fear of getting scooped"- How can you write this without a qualifier such as "it would appear". Ami assumed the entire time that other newspapers would have it- he felt the Forward would do a better story, no matter what other papers had.
2) Would you have blogged about this before speaking with Stadtmauer? If yes, what is the difference? Are you a journalist or not? If you are, why the double standard?
3)Why not critique "unorthodox Jew" for publishing the e-mail, long before the Forward story?"
The Canonist laments:"A reader who claims to know a lot about what went into the decision-making for the Forward's story on Stadtmauer e-mailed me with some specific questions about my post of last night and my initial reaction to the Forward story, touching on a number of issues of news philosophy in general and how blogging affects that discussion. While, on some recent occasions I've avoided writing about these issues because I feel that a lot of the blogging vs. MSM territory has been covered — even in specific regard to Jewish and religious coverage, in posts past — the questions presented by this reader deal with some issues I've yet to address, and the reader is a person for whom I have great respect.
His questions:
1) Why did you not call Ami [Eden] and ask him about why he ran the story before you blogged about it? "The only reason for the paper to cover that story before obtaining comment is the general fear of getting scooped"- How can you write this without a qualifier such as "it would appear". Ami assumed the entire time that other newspapers would have it- he felt the Forward would do a better story, no matter what other papers had.
2) Would you have blogged about this before speaking with Stadtmauer? If yes, what is the difference? Are you a journalist or not? If you are, why the double standard?
3)Why not critique "unorthodox Jew" for publishing the e-mail, long before the Forward story?"
posted by Paul Mendlowitz | 11:52 PM
14 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You are famous, UOJ!
yeah. a good question as we confront the noah story. Who is a tsaddik in our time? UOJ?
I'm not certain outing the rabbi, who had no criminal record, who left the rabbinate before you publicized his travel plans, was such a good idea.
I would prefer to think you felt sorry - for him and the whole situation, for your blog.
But, you are crowing about your achievements. If you are a rabbi, you are not a nice one. You bullied a weakling, not a sign of strength.
Take on your baale batim - b'pumbi - and let's read about you on somebody else's blog.
I do feel sorry for him, but NOT for the reasons you suggest.
He is another nail in the coffin of civilized society.
Then, why do you feel sorry for him? For his loss of income and prestige? His fatal flaw of being born with a yetser hara he couldn't control?
Your arrogance presents YOU with a similar challenge.
Yup.
"another nail in the coffin of a civilized society."
smug.
I am all for the jewish family and share those values. I live those values.
But, to imagine that we live in Sodom is unrealistic. Huge numbers of abortions in the west. Did I hear anyone complaining about the moral problem?
Hookers abound. There are plenty of sexual scandals now as in the past. So what? The nail in the coffin?
Everyone will answer for their sins when the time is ripe, not before. But, how we treat others is equally relevant. If you wish to cast stones, look for the mechallelei Shabbes in your midst. They exist. Do you believe everyone goes to mikveh? They don't. Are these nails in the coffin?
A S is a blip on the screen of history and the gay agenda affects such a minority of the population they are largely irrelevant.
like this blog.
ouch, you hurt my feelings.
Seriously, you do not get the differences of sin.
The sins against God are between man & God.
Homosexual behavior, which is not the same as Homosexual(there are none),is a sin against civilization(as well as God's intent for mankind).
The Gay agenda is out to destroy the family, if that's not a nail in the coffin of civilization, you are a lost soul who is either not smart or just a naive putz.
Bein adam la-makom, I understand; bein adam la-chaveiro I grasp; mitsvot shimi'ot, sikhliyot, been there, done that; but "sins against civilization?" are western concepts.
You are creating straw men. Those who justify intermarriage, are they any better than the gay agenda? Is their sin a crime against civilization?
I guess that thanks to the advantages of your superior (leading family) and education you understand the gay agenda better than most.
They shepp nachas from u.
Anonymous,
Either you are mentally able to grasp the difference or you are not.
The Gay agenda is a group of Liberal Socialists who enjoy deviant behavior who want to wreck the family structure, period!
You are quite correct about the small cabal.
I grasped that.
I don't think rabbi levado is helping by pushing for frum gay parity, but the poor Jews who suffer from deviant sexual thoughts are not part of an international conspiracy. Or, am I wrong, misguided, and unable to see your truth?
I was shocked to discover that yeshiva bochurim can also be cross dressers. They exist. They aren't even gay. Cross dressing is right up there with the gay agenda, no? Those with this yetser hara who father families are a threat to your civilization too.
I can't sit in judgement like you. I am mentally unable to.
The central question remains whether uoj was righteous in tar and feathering "a tragedy in our midst."
You opened the matter for discussion and critique.
Are unsavory, sensationalist contributions to public discourse a victory for your civilization?
Conversation and honest critique are healthy.
You don't have to agree with me or like the way I express myself, but NO BULLSHIT HERE!
congratulations.
no bullshit.
Post a Comment
<< Home